Pages

2015-01-09

Illuminati War on Gender- Obama Forces Women into Combat Roles -

Vatic Note: If your agenda is "Depopulation", you attack it from two sides, the first is to kill off as many as you can, especially men, since they are the seeders of the future generations, but also, controlling in some way, reproductive activities, either in seeding or in results of impregnation. Bill Gates has been instrumental in that department with his sterilizing vaccine program.

The powers that be also attacked the issue from a woman's perspective, since you only need one man and millions of women to reseed the population, So they began by creating, funding and directing the "Womens liberation movement", while at the same time promoting sexual recreation and decreased the promotion of marriage family and commitment to one spouse. Somehow, even with that pegnancies increased and babies were coming out like a broken dam. So now what to do?

Aaah, a woman dead or permanently injured can't carry a fetus to term and still have a viable baby, so PUT THEM IN HARMS WAY, to reduce the female population and their health, by inducting them into the military and give them combat roles to do. That would solve several problems. Women are the nurturers, due to their psychological make up for having babies. So, train and make them into hardened criminal murderers as has already been done to our men, and then put them in harms way.

That way you either have dead female soldiers or hardened killers and both serves their agenda. Clever. indeed, but definitely insane. John Lennon was right, these satanic cabal members are truly, demonic and insane. I served one term in the WACS and did not get trained on how to kill, rather on how to defend.

AT that time, women were mostly drivers, nurses, medical field personnel and they had to learn to defend themselves doing those jobs, just in case, they got separated from their unit and found themselves in such a defensive position. Obviously today its much different as we can see by this photograph.

I believe this began when they made women "combat pilots" and it worked and thus, progressed from there. Also, in order for the USA to LOSE WW III, THEY MUST ATTACK OUR MILITARY READINESS AND AS YOU CAN SEE BELOW, FORCING WOMEN INTO COMBAT HAS THE AFFECT OF DECREASING OUR MILITARY READINESS. This gives the Russians and Chinese a massive advantage over our combat capability.

Remember a couple of years ago we posted a blog showing that our military were training with Russian and Chinese troops to teach them our tactics and strategies? I asked them, What the heck are they doing this for, since they are our new potential enemies? No answer!!!! Now we know why. They want to insure our losses or they are doomed in their global agenda.

Add to all of this, the fact that its the khazars directing this New World order, and they have the highest rates of homosexuality of any nation on the planet, then you can figure out why they want women in combat. They hate us. They are heterophobes. These are just side issues to the depopulation done indirectly, rather than simply going up and shooting us.

Elaine Donnelly says women simply are not up for combat. I say this is a form of heterophobia far more vicious than any homophobia I've seen.The denial of gender differences is occult, more evidence we are satanically possessed- in the talons of the Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish (VN: Khazar, phallic worshipping....) satanic cult.

Now that voters have disposed of the phony "war on women," can we talk about real women fighting future wars?

More than 92 percent of active-duty Army women said in a recent official survey that they do not want and would not take direct ground combat (infantry) assignments. Nevertheless, President Obama plans to order women into the combat arms by January 2016...

The Center for Military Readiness has independently obtained and analyzed major research findings so far, and published a 64-page interim report titled "Where's the Case for Co-Ed Combat?" Respect for military women who have served with courage "in harm's way" is greater than ever. However, nothing in research findings so far supports the theory that women should be considered interchangeable with men in direct ground combat.

Upper-body strength and endurance are not the only issues of concern, but both are essential for survival and mission accomplishment. In the most physically demanding environments imaginable, it matters that in timed proxy tests simulating ordnance-stowing with 95-pound artillery rounds, less than 1 percent of the men failed, compared with 28 percent of the women.

In another test with progressively heavier weights lifted over the head, 80 percent of men could lift 115 pounds, but less than 9 percent of the women could do the same.

In a timed tank-loading simulation with 55-pound weights lifted five times, less than 1 percent of the men failed, compared with 18.6 percent of the women. Researchers noted that failure rates would increase in a more confined space such as a tank.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel should know better than most how important individual strength and speed can be. In Vietnam, Mr. Hagel saved his own brother by pulling him unconscious from a burning armored personnel carrier just before it blew up. No one's brother or son should die because of unrealistic theories about the equality of the sexes.

Some women score well in controlled tests, but survival and mission accomplishment also involve endurance over time. This lesson is being learned in tests of female volunteers on the Marines' Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va.

Since fall 2012, 24 female officers have attempted the grueling infantry test. All deserve credit for trying, but only four survived the deliberately difficult first day. Of those, none endured through the entire 13-week course, which involves 20-mile marches and carrying loads of up to 120 pounds.

Some activists have criticized the infantry officer training, noting that more than 40 women have completed the less-demanding course for enlisted infantrymen. There are major differences, however, because infantry officers must be prepared to lead others into battle.

In 2013, the Marines tried to make three pull-ups mandatory for female basic trainees, but had to suspend the requirement when 55 percent could not meet it. Recent tests have found that on average, men could do almost 16 pull-ups -- more than four times as many as the women.

Extra training can strengthen women, but physiology makes men even stronger. Experts know that unchanging androgenic characteristics in men account for greater muscle power and aerobic capabilities that are essential for endurance in land combat operations.

LOWERING STANDARDS

"Gender-neutral standards" are supposed to screen out individuals who cannot perform heavy tasks. The expectation is not realistic, however, in view of relentless Pentagon-endorsed demands for "gender diversity metrics," another name for quotas. In January 2013, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey admitted that high standards beyond the abilities of women would be questioned.

Training programs deemed inconsistent with "gender diversity" goals eventually will be eliminated, modified or scored differently in the process of "validating" standards that are "equal" but lower than before. This is the only way to achieve what Gen. Dempsey has called a "critical mass" of women in the combat arms.

In theory, three percent of women might meet male minimum standards, but going from the top of their fields to lower status in land combat units would set them up for career disadvantages and disproportionate, debilitating injuries. None of this is necessary, since women always have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have the option to ask for exceptions to the administration's mandate to integrate the combat arms. Sufficient research data justifying exceptions already exist, but members of Congress need to honor military women by conducting responsible oversight that takes this issue seriously. If officials intend to "go where the numbers take us," the way ahead should be clear.

I was at the personnel officer (S1) for an intelligence battalion stationed in Germany. We had lots of women in the unit. The battalion commander called me into his office and told me: We have to get all the women with children in the unit to put in writing what they will do with their children in time of war. Here is the list. Get them to put in writing who will take care of their children if this becomes a war zone.

I called them one by one into my office. Without exception they all said: "I am not legally obliged, as a woman, to stay in a combat zone. My first duty is to my child or children. I am serving primarily to help support them and myself. I intend to avail myself of my legal right to leave a war zone and take my child/children with me." Without exception. I went back to the commander and told him what they had all said. I added: That makes sense to me. I have no intention of attempting to get them to commit to anything other than this position. He just sat there and said nothing. The matter went no further. - See more at: http://henrymakow.com/#sthash.lmH5uD1C.dpufThe article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.